Persons responsible for the proceedings did not attend examination of ‘Electric Yerevan’ participant’s complaint
11:26, July 5, 2017 | News, Own news | Freedom of Assembly and Association, Freedom of Movement, Right to liberty and securityOn May 11, 2017 the General Jurisdiction Court of Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun administrative districts rejected the complaint of ‘Electric Yerevan’ participant Mikayel Kirakosyan and his representative Tatevik Siradeghyan, lawyer at Yerevan office of HCA Vanadzor.
Based on M. Kirakosyan’s crime report on being apprehended by violence from the protest area on July 6, 2015 and getting injuries as a result of such apprehension, the RA Special Investigation Service initiated criminal proceedings, but discontinued them on December 26, 2016. The complaint filed with the Court required compelling the body responsible for the proceedings to stop violation of M. Kirakosyan’s rights and freedoms.
After the first instance court’s ruling, the decision of the agency responsible for the proceedings was also appealed before the RA Court of Criminal Appeals which, presided by judge R. Barseghyan, started examination of the appeal on July 3, 2017.
The court hearing was attended only by M. Kirakosyan’s representative T. Siradeghyan who presented the grounds of the appeal and the circumstances of restricting M. Kirakosyan’s freedom of assembly, right to liberty and security of person and freedom of movement. T. Siradeghyan noted that the use of physical force against him was not lawful and the actions of the RA Police officers had signs of the crime envisaged by Article 309 of the RA Criminal Code. And the decisions of the body responsible for the proceedings and the court violated the complainant’s right to an effective legal remedy and he was deprived of the possibility to recover the damage caused to him by the publicly dangerous act.
After hearing the complainant’s representative, the court postponed the hearing till July 20, 2017, 1 pm, so that the body responsible for the proceedings and the prosecutor also had an opportunity to express their position.